From Thucydides’s Athens to 21st-century America, appeasement is not a winner.

The common bond among the various elements of the failed Obama foreign policy — from reset with Putin to concessions to the Iranians — is a misreading of human nature. The so-called Enlightened mind claims that the more rationally and deferentially one treats someone pathological, the more likely it is that he will respond and reform — or at least behave. The medieval mind, within us all, claims the opposite is more likely to be true.

Read Gerhard Weinberg’s A World at Arms or Richard Overy’s 1939, for an account of the negotiations preceding World War II, and you will find that an underappreciated theme emerges: the autocratic accentuation of the human tendency to interpret concession and empathy not as magnanimity to be reciprocated, but rather as weakness to be exploited or as a confession of culpability worthy of contempt.

The more Britain’s Chamberlain and France’s Daladier in 1938 genuinely sought to reassure Hitler of their benign intentions, the more the Nazi hierarchy saw them as little more than “worms” — squirming to appease the stronger spirit. Both were seen as unsure of who they were and what they stood for, ready to forfeit the memory of the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of their own on the false altar of a supposedly mean and unfair Versailles Treaty.

Hitler perversely admired Stalin after the latter liquidated a million German prisoners, and hated FDR, whose armies treated German POWs with relative humanity. In matters big and small, from Sophocles’ Antigone to Shakespeare’s King Lear, we see the noble and dutiful treated worse by their beneficiaries than the duplicitous and traitorous. Awareness of this pernicious trait is not cynical encouragement to adopt such pathologies and accept our dog-eat-dog world. Rather, in the postmodern, high-tech 21st century, we sometimes fool ourselves into thinking we have evolved to a higher level than what Thucydides saw at Melos or Corcyra — a conceit that is dangerous for the powerful and often fatal for the weaker.

One thing Donald Trump got right was the pathetic spectacle of socialist Bernie Sanders being mystified about why Black Lives Matter activists would pick on him of all people. Why would they not first hijack a speech by Trump or Walker to shout down the conservative audience? If two white pro-life evangelicals had grabbed Sanders’s microphone, would he have so obsequiously ceded it? Would the activists have been more respectful of the microphone of the officious Sanders or the imperious Trump?

The most important characteristic of a sound diplomat and negotiator is the acknowledgment of this sad human characteristic, which to some degree is innate in us all. It was often said during the Cold War that the Soviet hegemonists would rather negotiate with right-wingers than liberals, apparently on the premise that those they could not bully they respected, and those they could bully they felt only contempt for. It reminds me of a minor Chinese official who once told me that she thought Obama must be a master of intrigue; otherwise, she could not believe a leader would so frequently neglect his own country’s strategic interests.

Consider immigration. After we had allowed well over 12 million illegal aliens into the country, permitted hundreds of sanctuary cities to be established, and de facto suspended federal immigration laws and stopped deportations, did either the Mexican government or the illegal aliens and their La Raza supporters interpret this as magnanimity to be reciprocated? Did we hear paeans to American willingness to take in 10 percent of the Mexican population and show it more deference and respect than did its mother country? Is that the message on Univision, in Chicano Studies departments, and at immigration rallies — the singular kindness of the United States in absorbing a tenth of the population of its neighbor by waiving all considerations of legality?

Or did the shrill complaints of racism, nativism, and xenophobia only accelerate as more impoverished refugees made their way into postmodern California and found themselves exempt from enforcement of the laws — and, by extension, without much respect for a country that itself had no respect for its own legal system? If there were a walled border, an E-Verify system, expeditious deportation for those who had either committed crimes or quickly enrolled in government entitlement programs, would Mexico’s rulers think worse or perhaps more highly of us, in the manner in which they assume that Central Americans respect Mexico for the confidence with which it patrols its southern border? Would illegal aliens here be more or less careful to follow the law, if a serious misdemeanor or a felony would result in instant — and permanent — deportation? Would there be more or fewer Mexican flags at immigration rallies, and would soccer fans be more or less likely to boo the American team and cheer the Mexican team, if the border were closed and those who broke the laws of the host country were sent home? In a system of closed borders, immediate and permanent deportation for criminal activity, and no sanctuary cities, would the illegal immigrant have more or less respect for his hosts?

Then we come to Iran. Does Supreme Leader Khamenei tone down his anti-American rhetoric — unwise though such rhetoric may seem in the midst of heated debates over the wisdom of President Obama’s negotiations — when the United States offers concessions on continued enrichment and centrifuges, or backs off from snap-back sanctions and anywhere/anytime inspections? If the U.S. Congress should defeat the treaty, reinstate even tougher sanctions, organize another global boycott, and warn the Iranians that they will be held accountable for their terrorist operatives, would Iranian theocrats keep chanting “Death to America” in their legislative chambers and press ahead with enrichment as they wink and nod to their allies about nuclear proliferation?

The trait is not quite ingratitude so much as it is gratuitous derision. It all reminds me of 1980, when the ingratiating Jimmy Carter (remember the aborted appeasement mission of Ramsey Clark, and Andy Young’s blessing of Khomeini as a probable “saint”?) was slandered as satanic by the Iranian hostage-takers, while President-elect Ronald Reagan was met with silence and released hostages.

The Castro brothers just upped their rhetoric, as Fidel demanded millions of dollars in embargo reparations as part of President Obama’s “normalization” of relations with Cuba — apparently to remind the world that the Cubans have no intention of paying back the billions of dollars they confiscated 55 years ago in American capital and property, much less of easing up on human-rights activists. Why would the Castros do that at this point, when no American president in a half-century has been more deferential to their Stalinist government? Is their defiance cheap public grandstanding for the benefit of Cuban hardliners, or a more natural reaction known to benefactors and beneficiaries alike as something like the following: “If he gave a wretch like me something for nothing, then he either did not deserve what he had or he should have given me even more”? Do spoiled teenagers become parsimonious when they see their hard-working parents scrimping and saving to pay off their maxed-out credit cards — or do they become even more irresponsible, thinking that their parents were rich, after all, or perhaps could not be real parents for covering the splurges of someone as reckless as themselves?

If a President Rubio announced a ratcheting up of sanctions, a public campaign on behalf of democratic dissidents in Cuban jails, and increased radio and television broadcasts to the enslaved island, would Castro think any less of him than he does of President Obama? Would he now be demanding of Rubio millions in reparations?

Why did Putin react to Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s obsequious reset with invasions of his smaller neighbors? Is the U.S. popular in Libya for removing the hated Qaddafi? Do the Palestinians appreciate stepped-up foreign aid to them and American pressure on Israel? Why did ISIS swallow Iraq immediately following our departure, when we had been told ad nauseam in the 2008 campaign that our foreign presence there was an irritant and a radicalizing force among the peoples of the Middle East?

The answer is something more than just the obvious: that naïve appeasement is more dangerous than wise deterrence, or that the sober advice to keep quiet and carry a large stick trumps sounding off while wielding a toothpick.

Certainly, there are downsides to braggadocio and the sloppy use of force. Rudeness and gratuitous putdowns are counterproductive. Still, certain sorts of outreach, especially those that appear to be pandering, incite revulsion. We see the phenomenon anywhere that human nature plays out in our collective arenas. If the police de facto confess culpability and pull out of the inner city of Baltimore in the wake of rioting, why wouldn’t the murder rate accelerate and hatred of the police — initially for their proactive strategy and later for their retrenchment — intensify? Would you expect criminals to think: “Since the police are now giving us some latitude, and since we are now free from intrusive proactive broken-windows policing, at last we have peace and mutual respect and thus, with the community in our own hands, less desire to commit crimes”?

Repeatedly the Obama administration has been shocked to see that the recipients of its consideration, from Putin to Khamenei, interpret such deference as weakness or maybe even smug arrogance. At times I think Vladimir Putin would prefer to be checked by NATO in Ukraine than psychoanalyzed by an appeasing Obama as an adolescent class cut-up engaged in “macho schtick.”

The current attraction of Trump is not his consistent and detailed agenda (he has no such thing), much less his conservative pedigree and mannered repartee. It instead may well be his brash assertions that what he believes in he is unapologetic about. Trump assumes that life is a bellum omnium contra omnes, in which protecting one’s own and preferring one’s own interests to someone else’s not only is natural but earns respect rather than contempt from rivals. That is not a credo to base a campaign on, but in these dark days, many for a time apparently see it as a brief return to normalcy.

Obama’s misreading of human nature has proverbially sown the wind, and the whirlwind is upon us.

Like this:

About Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a professor of Classics Emeritus at California State University, Fresno, and a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services. He is also the Wayne & Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History, Hillsdale College, where he teaches each fall semester courses in military history and classical culture.

And why not? Dr. Hanson, I love your essays but this one makes the opposite case of the quote, above. I just don’t see how you got from the overwhelming body of this post to “That is not a credo…” Makes no sense to me.

“The current attraction of Trump is not his consistent and detailed agenda (he has no such thing)…”

Did you read his plan on immigration? Is that not detailed enough for you at tis early date in the campaign? Has *any* other candidate come out with *anything* approaching this? Do you also discount Sen. Sessions’ work with him on this (not to mention his immediate endorsement of it)?

BHO has been a disaster for our country, the RINOs have perpetuated and enabled it for going on seven years now. We need someone who is willing to put us and the U.S. first above all else.

Yes, except Trump is on record as saying Democrats are better for the economy, holds many other views that are Progressive, and said in a Palyboy interview years ago that he feels a kinship with the Democrat Party that doesn’t exist with the Republicans. Beyond that, the man may say many things that are on the minds of many Americans, but he purposely says them in words that are meant to inflame rather than to inform. With Trump, as with any would-be leader, the slogan we should all remember is caveat emptor.

Trump’s white paper on immigration, which I doubt he wrote, has plenty of flaws. For example, he wants to deport U.S. citizens, i.e.: Anchor Babies, back to their parents’ country of origin. This is patently illegal and would never work. It would also needlessly inflame and alienate Hispanics. I like the fact that he’s serious about sealing off the border and ending the ongoing chaos of people smuggling and drug running, but if Mitt Romney only received 27% of the Hispanic vote for saying illegal aliens should ‘self deport’ then we shouldn’t expect Trump to do any better, and he would probably do a lot worse.

Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Carly Fiorena are all conservative, smart, and well polished. And with Hillary’s campaign getting closer every day to self-destructing, the GOP has a golden opportunity to take the WH in 2016. Let’s not blow it by giving undue deference to a self-aggrandizing real estate mogul.

Don’t understand your statement about Mr. Trump not having a detailed agenda. He just came out with a detailed immigration policy and it has been applauded by many. Obama talked a lot several years ago about hope and change. I don’t recall anyone asking him what he meant.

Chamberlain was quite a hero after pulling off his “brave” negotiations with Hitler. If that comparison isn’t enough then look at our negotiations with North Korea. That was an epic failure.

Obama condemned what he characterized as Bush’s lack of engagement with North Korea. He vowed “…the complete and verifiable elimination of all of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs, as well as its past proliferation activities…” So Obama negotiated a Clinton-like food deal with N Korea, but after the agreement N Korea acted like nothing changed and launched a provocative rocket test. This forced the Administration to cancel the food deal.

Andrew Natsios, at Georgetown University, wrote a great op-ed in the Washington Post about Obama’s complete lack of focus. Check it out. This is Obama’s legacy…

2VictorDavisHanson 4ContemptOfObama
The aura of contempt is not a one-way street when it comes to Pres. Obama and the voting public. His trading of terrorist for traitors in the Berghdahl affair was just one example of the contempt Pres. Obama holds against the American populace. As I emphasized on pp. 289 ff of my book, {http://www.friesenpress.com/bookstore/title/119734000001612306/Constancio-Sulapas-Asumen-Flirting-with-Misadventures} ~> President Obama’s ascendancy to the Oval Office was made possible mainly by a failure of the majority of the American electorate to recognize a multitude of patterns concerning Barack Hussein Obama, the individual, his modus operandi, and its cumulative impact to our national polity. These include, among others, his associations, his teleprompter enhanced eloquence, his penchant to obfuscate information obstinately, his flair for the dramatic and sensational, etc., in endless litany.

Granted, there were countless enablers along the way. But the genius of Obama lies in his gambit that taken as a litany, or a laundry list of seemingly harmless lapses of judgment, his modus operandi could not harm him politically. He was in effect counting on the statistical certitude that the majority of the electorate could not muster a gestalt perception of himself as a politician. Therefore Americans as the electorate are inherently incapable of knowing how harmful Obama is to America.

It is a certainty because the electorate as a collection of minds and individual conscience and consciousness, constitute a few drops of genius in a bucket of mediocrity. This is not to denigrate the intelligence of the American electorate. It is just to recognize the undeniable brutal reality that statistically, the nonchalant John and Jane Doe “cannot care less” amongst us do vastly outnumber the “you never can fool me” Einstein and Heisenberg amongst us.

The Money which backs a career politician or squawking ideologue, easily banks wealth front-running what moves their candidate will predictably make—- better known as shooting fish in the Clinton barrel. Or, Obama’s pummel coal, subsidize green printing press. The money-backed candidate is basically a useful idiot, a goose laying golden eggs. Masquerading idiots are being rejected at the polls.

It’s more than sad that Obama and the idiots who work for him have to learn these lessons on our dime.
(though I doubt their arrogance lets even a modicum of understanding break through their egos)
It’s all theory with them. Zero practical experience beyond maybe lying about everything.
They know that works with true believing Zealots but that’s about all they know.
If you’ve raised kids you know that a firm understanding hand conveys security to a child and that
equivocating and indecisiveness does nothing but create instability.
What you delineate is obvious even in children.
Human nature is an actual thing folks. Some things work and some things don’t.
Hillary’s hubris is finally putting her where she belongs and Obamas will eventually do the same with him.
It would help us all if we had leaders who knew these things.

VDH,
Obama’s staunch record is however subject to two qualifications of failure. I have a different exaggeration in regards to them. By all means both are inexcusable as you have noted. I feel you might have overlooked the valour of Churchill’s opposition as it was to government, but he was sometimes moderate by his desire to regain high office within. Could this be said of Obama? Obama is a politician with a party and a seat, but yet he is similar to Ronald Reagan. The presence of privilege is hardly tactful in your writings regarding Obama. Please remember just like in the case of Churchill and in annuals of histories antiquity prosperity of an empire and the country is inspired by class jealousy and the doctrines of envy, hatred and malice. Frustrations of tyranny seem to be Trump’s campaign message. Like him or not his promise of change is “the blaze of triumph.” It seems no different from Obamas’. A touch of perverse jealousy and private shadow of impetuous self-centered intentions provides little hope for the country and a humble and passive Thompson Raisin Farmer and history teacher like myself.
Best,
Jared William Carter (jwc) Caruthers, Ca

The agreement with Iran is not a treaty requiring a 2/3 approval vote in the Senate before having the full force and effect of law but an executive agreement that requires only to be reported to the Congress. As for the deal itself, it is a done deal.

Interesting to note that now it suddenly seems so important to check Trump’s background as a base for voting decisions when Obama’s background was glossed over in a rush to judge his elective worth merely on slick mouthings.

The rat Obama is of course despised by anyone who understands anything of governance – which most people do not. He has done much damage.

I think it is erroneous, however, to exculpate rat Obama of malice, however. To me, an active and malignant malice against America and Americans is one of the determining factors of his “presidency.” He has done damage to many non-Americans; I am not sure if that is due to malice or to sadism.

Sure, it is possible that the Administration is “shocked” at the consequences of its actions. But its actions weaken our institutions and allies, and strengthen our enemies, consistently. More likely the consequences are the expected and desired result.

This is a general comment..on the site as a whole…now that I’ve read several posts. WOW…how can one man believe that he can be so certain about so many complex things. Victor…you offer not a single glimpse of any intellectual humility. As a result, I have to dismiss all that you write as dangerous propaganda. WOW!

Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution; his focus is classics and military history.

Latest Books by Victor Davis Hanson

2019 European Tour

New Episode of The Classicist

One Hundred years after the Treaty of Versailles ended World War I, Victor Davis Hanson argues that the effects of the agreement are widely misunderstood. In this episode, we look at Versailles in the context of the wider war (and the wartime diplomacy of the era), examine the American role in World War I, parse the claim that the First World War was little more than a tragic mistake, and scrutinize claims that modern geopolitical tensions have parallels to those of 1914.

New Episode of The Classicist

On the 80th anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Victor Davis Hanson reflects on how the short-lived German-Soviet treaty shaped the course of World War II — and what it revealed about the leadership styles of both Hitler and Stalin.

New Encounter Books Interview

New Episode of Whiskey Politics

Victor Davis Hanson discusses the damaging disclosure about Obama keeping tabs on the FBI Hillary Clinton email investigation, State Department unmasking, why Hillary’s and Obama’s hubris may be their own downfall and how this can very well be a Watergate or Iran-Contra type scandal.